U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway

Congestion Mitigation Project

Environmental Assessment

July 2022
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Federal Railroad Administration in the 

interest of information exchange and optional guidance. The United States Government assumes no 

liability for the contents or use thereof. This document does not take the place of any laws or regulations.
Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Congestion Mitigation Project 

Environmental Assessment 

Prepared For: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Prepared by: 

Skelly and Loy, A Terracon Company 

Harrisburg, PA 

Pursuant to: 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC § 4321 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 1500 

et seq.), Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303(c)), FRA Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 28545, May 26, 1999); National Historic Preservation 

Act (54 USC § 300101 et seq.) and implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800); Clean Air Act, as amended 

(42 USC § 7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 93); the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §t 1531 et seq.) and implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. Part 402); and the Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.) and implementing regulations (33 C.F.R. Part 320 et seq. and 40 C.F.R. 

Part 230). 

Jamie P. Rennert 7/27/2022

_____________________________________________ _______________________ 

Jamie P. Rennert Date 

Director, Office of Infrastructure Investment 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

RPD-220719-001
i | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................................................4

1.2 Project Description ..............................................................................................................................6

1.3 Study Area ...........................................................................................................................................7

1.4 Other Actions in the Study Area..........................................................................................................9

2.0 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................................9

Congestion.................................................................................................................................................9

Operational Changes...............................................................................................................................10

Rail-served Industry.................................................................................................................................10

3.0 Alternatives...........................................................................................................................................10

3.1 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................................................................................10

3.2 Build Alternative................................................................................................................................10

4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...................................................................16

4.1 Resources Not Included in the Analysis.............................................................................................16

4.2 Natural Environment.........................................................................................................................17

4.2.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change................................................................17

4.2.2 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................................................20

4.2.3 Farmland Resources...................................................................................................................23

4.2.4 Forest Resources........................................................................................................................24

4.2.5 Water Quality.............................................................................................................................25

4.2.6 Wetlands and Watercourses......................................................................................................26

4.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................30

4.3 Human Environment .........................................................................................................................33

4.3.1 Cultural and Historic Resources.................................................................................................34

4.3.2 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parks and Recreation................................................................................35

4.3.3 Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material ...............................................................................35

4.3.4 Land Use.....................................................................................................................................37

4.3.5 Demographics/Environmental Justice .......................................................................................37

4.3.6 Public Health, Safety, and Security ............................................................................................42

4.3.7 Transportation and Energy Use .................................................................................................43

4.4 Construction Period Impacts.............................................................................................................44

4.4.1 Identification..............................................................................................................................44
ii | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................45

4.5.1 Identification and Impacts.........................................................................................................45

5.0 Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures.............................................................................47

6.0 Coordination and Consultation.............................................................................................................48

6.1 Public Involvement............................................................................................................................48

6.2 Agency Coordination .........................................................................................................................48

6.3 EA Distribution List ............................................................................................................................49

7.0 List of Preparers....................................................................................................................................50

Skelly and Loy ..........................................................................................................................................50

Terracon...................................................................................................................................................50

Appendices....................................................................................................................................................1

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures..............................................................................2

Table 2: Build Alternative Details................................................................................................................11

Table 3: Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - Mecklenburg County ............................................................18

Table 4: Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - Cabarrus County ...................................................................19

Table 5: Existing Noise Exposure.................................................................................................................21

Table 6: Proposed Action Noise Exposure ..................................................................................................22

Table 7: Watercourse Impact by Site..........................................................................................................30

Table 8: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species...............................................................................31

Table 9: State Threatened or Rare Species.................................................................................................33

Table 10: Summary of Archaeological Site Data.........................................................................................34

Table 11: Environmental Justice Analysis...................................................................................................40

Table 12: Past, Present, Future Actions – Clear Creek Commerce area .....................................................46

Table 13: Distribution List...........................................................................................................................49

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Project Location ............................................................................................................................5

Figure 2 - Proposed Action Study Area and Limits of Disturbance ...............................................................8

Figure 3 - Mint Hill Warehouse project site, looking north. .......................................................................24

Figure 4 - Far Branch looking north at Midland site. ..................................................................................26

Figure 5 - Wetland and watercourses at Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse Site...............................27

Figure 6 - Wetlands and watercourses at Midland Site..............................................................................28

Figure 7 - Wetlands and watercourses at ACWR HQ Storage Yard Site. ....................................................29

Figure 8 - Schweinitz’s Sunflower...............................................................................................................31

Figure 9 - Zoning Districts ...........................................................................................................................38
iii | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Appendices

Appendix A – Project Mapping

Appendix B – USDA NRCS Coordination 

Appendix C – Wetland and Watercourse Documentation

Appendix D – Threatened and Endangered Species Coordination 

Appendix E – Section 106 Consultation and Supporting Documentation 

Appendix F – Hazardous Waste Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

Appendix G – Public and Agency Coordination 
1 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Executive Summary

The Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) is proposing to use Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program and Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Funding (RRIF) to administer a congestion mitigation project. The 

Proposed Action includes the construction of new facilities at five (5) locations. The five Sites include 

three (3) storage and passing sidings, two (2) storage and switching yards, and one (1) warehouse. The 

purpose of the Proposed Action is to address congestion issues on the existing railroad. All construction 

activities would take place within railroad right-of-way (ROW) or on land owned by ACWR1.

The Study Area for the Proposed Action comprises five separate Sites in central North Carolina. The three 

western Sites are located in the urbanized and rapidly developing Charlotte Metropolitan Statistical Area 

(MSA) while the two eastern Sites are located in the rural area surrounding Candor, NC (see Figure 1). Due 

to the use of federal funds, the Proposed Action must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969. To document the Proposed Action and its effects on the natural, cultural, and social 

environment, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), as lead federal agency, has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA inventories the environmental resources within the defined Study 

Area, discloses and analyzes impacts to those resource areas, and identifies potential mitigation 

opportunities to minimize impacts (Table 1). The EA also summarizes the agency and public outreach 

completed to date. This document affords the public an opportunity to review the information and 

participate in the NEPA process prior to decisions being made or action being taken.

What is the Purpose of the Proposed Action? The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce the 

congestion associated with the current configuration of the ACWR rail line. Reducing congestion would

improve viability and long-term sustainability of freight rail service and increase efficiency along the 

existing rail and road transportation network. The Proposed Action includes the construction of storage 

and passing sidings, storage and switching yards, and a rail-served warehouse.

How can I get involved or comment on the EA? Public comments are now being solicited on this EA. FRA 

is accepting public comments related to this EA during a public comment period that will extend for a 

minimum of 30 days after publication of the EA. Comments may be submitted via email to 

kevin.wright@dot.gov or physical mail to:

Kevin Wright

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast

Washington, DC 20590

What happens next? Once the comment period closes, the FRA will review comments from the public 

and agencies and issue a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) or determine the Proposed Action has 

the potential for one or more significant impacts to the human environment, thereby requiring the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1 The project sponsor (ACWR) owns or will own the Study Area when construction is proposed to commence. Portions of the Study Area are 

owned currently by ACWR through its subsidiaries, Mint Hill Industrial, LLC and ACWR Shops, LLC through common ownership. Further, ACWR 

operates the existing rail line and is in the process of purchasing it from Norfolk Southern. This acquisition was approved via Categorical Exclusion 

in 2021. For simplicity, ACWR is referred to as the owner of the Study Area throughout the EA.
2 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Build Alternative

Anticipated Impacts

Build Alternative

Mitigation Measures

Air Quality, Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG), Climate 

Change

Impacts are below US EPA de minimis. No further 

analysis required.

No mitigation required; best 

management practices proposed to 

reduce temporary impacts.

Noise and Vibration No adverse noise impacts. 

No mitigation required; best 

management practices proposed to 

reduce temporary impacts.

Farmland and Forest Statewide Important Soil impacts and forest impacts. No mitigation

Water Quality

No decrease in water quality is anticipated with 

adherence to state and federal permitting 

requirements. ACWR Storage Yard is within a designated 

Water Supply Watershed.

ACWR Storage Yard design includes

30-foot buffer around wetland and 

watercourses.

Wetlands and 

Watercourses No wetland impacts and 0.04 acre of stream impacts.

Mitigation will be determined through 

coordination with USACE during the

Section 404 permitting process.

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

May affect, but not likely to adversely affect Northern 

Long-eared Bat (NLEB). No effect to other federal and 

state species. 

Mitigation measures require tree 

clearing to be completed outside of 

active roost season (from June 1 

through July 31).

Cultural and Historic 

Resources 

No historic properties were identified within the Study 

Area. Section 106 consultation with NC SHPO resulted in 

a determination of no historic properties affected.

No mitigation 

Section 4(f)/6(f) and 

Parks and Recreation No Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources present. No mitigation 

Hazardous Material and 

Hazardous Waste No hazardous waste concerns. 

No mitigation; however, should waste 

be encountered during construction, it 

will be disposed of properly.

Land Use Minor change in land use within designated growth 

areas.

No mitigation 

Demographics and 

Environmental Justice

No disproportionally high and adverse effect on EJ 

populations. No mitigation 

Public Health, Safety 

and Security Increased public safety along at-grade crossings. No mitigation 

Transportation and 

Energy Use

Increase in efficiency would reduce rail and road 

congestion and energy consumption. No mitigation, positive impact.
3 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Build Alternative

Anticipated Impacts

Build Alternative

Mitigation Measures

Construction Period 

Impacts 

Minor water quality, air, noise, and private crossing

impacts anticipated during construction.

Soil erosion best management 

practices to reduce water quality 

issues, well maintained equipment to 

reduce air and noise impacts and 

coordination with property owners 

with private crossing prior to 

construction are proposed.

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts Minor indirect and cumulative impacts. No mitigation 
4 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

1.0 Introduction

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway (ACWR) is a short line regional railroad company located in central 

North Carolina. Existing facilities include approximately 140 miles spanning six counties including 

Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Stanly, Montgomery, Moore, and Chatham Counties.

ACWR is proposing to use Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) Consolidated Rail 

Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) 

Program and Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Funding (RRIF) to administer a 

congestion mitigation project. Due to the use of 

federal funds, the Proposed Action must comply 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

of 1969. To document the Proposed Action and its 

effects on the natural, cultural, and social 

environment, the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) has prepared this Environmental Assessment 

(EA). The Proposed Action includes the construction 

of new facilities at five (5) locations. The five Sites

include three (3) storage and passing sidings, two (2)

storage and switching yards, and one (1) warehouse

(see Figure 1). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address congestion issues on the existing railroad. 

All construction activities would take place within existing ACWR railroad right-of-way (ROW) or on land 

owned by ACWR2. 

The congestion mitigation project will be referred to as the Proposed Action throughout this EA. Each of 

the five locations will be referred to as the Sites on an individual basis. The five Sites comprise the Study 

Area. Environmental resources have been assessed within and adjacent to the Study Area, please see 

Section 1.3 for more information on the Study Area.

1.1 Project Background 

ACWR is a family-owned and operated railway. The Menzies family bought the freight railroad in 1987 

with one locomotive and three customers. The ACWR currently serves approximately 18 industries moving 

plastics, grain, lumber, wood chips, aggregate, brink, butane, ethanol, propane and many other products. 

Other services beyond freight transportation include transloading, locomotive and rail car repairs, and 

industrial site development. ACWR’s existing facilities include 140 miles of track, switching yards, storage 

and passing facilities, and industrial sites, along with the necessary maintenance equipment.

2 The project sponsor (ACWR) owns or will own the Study Area when construction is proposed to commence. Portions of the Study Area are 

owned currently by ACWR through its subsidiaries, Mint Hill Industrial, LLC and ACWR Shops, LLC. Further, ACWR operates the existing rail line 

and is in the process of purchasing it from Norfolk Southern. This acquisition was approved via Categorical Exclusion in 2021. For simplicity, ACWR 

is referred to as the owner of the Study Area throughout the EA.

The National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 

4321 et seq) requires federal agencies, in this 

case FRA (23 CFR Part 771.119), to consider the 

impacts of their actions on the natural, social, 

economic, and cultural environments and to 

disclose considerations in a public document. The 

NEPA process is intended to help public officials 

make decisions based on an understanding of the 

environmental consequences and to take actions 

that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 1500.1).

6 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

The Proposed Action would add passing sidings, storage yards, and a warehouse near Mint Hill and 

Candor, NC. Additional switching tracks would be used to perform the sorting and re-ordering of railcars 

due to recent Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) traffic pattern changes and to sufficiently process 

traffic with CSX and Norfolk Southern. The addition of new switching yards and passing siding tracks would

allow for more locations to perform switching activities and allow trains to pass. This would reduce

operational inefficiencies, increase equipment cycle times, and avoid issues of congestion and blockage 

of road crossings. A warehouse and distribution facility would offer direct access to rail, avoiding 

additional highway congestion while providing affordable rail-served space to facilitate growth of railbased transportation.

1.2 Project Description 

A description the Proposed Action activities and summary of adjacent land use is provided below. For 

more information on the Proposed Action, please see Section 3.2.

Mint Hill, North Carolina [Mecklenburg County]

Mint Hill Siding – Proposed Action activities at this location include the construction of 5,000 track feet 

of new storage and passing siding along the existing railroad located between Albemarle Road and 

I-485. The rail right-of-way in this location varies between 150 to over 200 feet wide with a general 

clear zone of 50 feet. Surrounding land use is mainly wooded with sparse, large lot residential 

development. All work would be completed within the existing railroad right-of-way (ROW) owned by 

ACWR.

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Mint Hill Warehouse – Proposed Action activities at this location include 

the construction of new storage track spurs and a warehouse on a 66-acre property located along Allen 

Station Road. Construction activities include grading for new roads, a parking area, loading docks, eight

new storage track spurs totaling 18,000 track feet, stormwater basins, and an approximately 200,000-

400,000 square-foot warehouse. The parcel is woodland located in a quickly developing area. Previous 

infrastructure remains on the property, including utilities, road grading, and stormwater basins. 

Surrounding land uses include Rocky River High School and Hope Community Fellowship, along with 

commercial and medium to high density residential developments. All work would be completed on 

land owned by ACWR.

Midland, North Carolina [Cabarrus County]

Midland Siding – Proposed Action activities at this location include the construction of 3,100 track feet 

of new storage and passing siding approximately 2 miles east of Midland. The surrounding land use is 

mainly wooded. The rail ROW in this location is approximately 120 feet wide with a bump out at a 

stream crossing to approximately 200 feet wide. The track is on fill through this section with a general 

clear zone of 50 feet. All work at this location would take place within the existing railroad ROW owned 

by ACWR.

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Headquarters, Candor, North Carolina [Montgomery County]

ACWR HQ Storage Yard – Proposed Action activities at this location include the construction of 12 new 

storage track spurs totaling up to 20,000 track feet located north of the existing ACWR headquarters 

building. The area is currently cleared. Surrounding land use includes wooded and agricultural land. All 

work would be completed on land owned by ACWR.
7 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Samarcand and Eagle Springs, North Carolina [Moore County]

Samarcand Siding – Proposed Action activities at this location include the construction of 7,000 track

feet of new double ended passing and storage siding along the existing railroad. The rail ROW in this 

location is approximately 100 feet wide with a general clear zone of 50 feet. Surrounding land use is 

wooded and agricultural intermixed with residential development. All work would be completed within 

the existing railroad ROW owned by ACWR.

1.3 Study Area 

The Study Area comprises five Sites divided between the vicinity of Charlotte and the town of Candor, a 

more rural area approximately 70 miles to the east. The Proposed Action would take place either within 

existing rail ROW or industrial property adjacent to rail ROW, all of which is owned by ACWR. Mint Hill 

Siding, Midland Siding, and Samarcand Siding Study Areas are located within existing railroad ROW, while 

the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse and ACWR HQ Storage Yard Sites are located on industrial 

properties adjacent to the railroad ROW. The Study Area is wholly contained within existing rail ROW or 

on land owned by ACWR; no land or building acquisition or demolition would be necessary for the 

Proposed Action.

The Study Area consists of 134 acres comprised of the locations described below and shown on Figure 2:

Mint Hill Siding - The Mint Hill Siding Site is located within the existing railroad ROW. The Study Area 

is approximately 5,000 feet long and 300 feet wide (125 feet off centerline of the existing rail). The 

area totals approximately 35 acres.

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse – The Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse Site is located on 

land owned by ACWR. The area is the entire parcel which is approximately 66 acres.

Midland Siding - The Midland Siding Site is located within the existing railroad ROW. The Study Area is 

approximately 3,500 feet long and 300 feet wide (125 feet off centerline of the existing rail with an 

expansion around the stream crossing to 200 feet). The area totals approximately 24 acres.

ACWR HQ Storage Yard – The ACWR HQ Storage Yard Site is located on the existing ACWR HQ property

shown as the Limit of Disturbance (LOD) for the Proposed Action under this grant program, including 

approximately 25 acres.

Samarcand Siding - The Samarcand Siding Site is located within the existing railroad ROW and totals 

approximately 45 acres. The Study Area is approximately 7,000 feet long and 300 feet wide (125 feet 

off centerline of the existing rail). 

Detailed project mapping including the Location Map, Study Area and Limit of Disturbance Maps, along 

with Impact Maps, can be viewed in Appendix A.

9 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

1.4 Other Actions in the Study Area 

In addition to the Proposed Action, a separate rehabilitation project is proposed along the ACWR line. The 

proposed project includes replacement and rehabilitation of existing ties, bridge ties, switch ties and rail; 

re-decking of bridges; tamping, regulating and surfacing existing track and roadway; and addition of 

ballast. Proposed improvements would bring the overall system into a state of good repair by restoring 

badly degraded infrastructure. Additionally, the infrastructure upgrade would re-establish speeds on the 

line from the reduced 10 mph to the original 25 mph and bring the line back up to an FRA Class II track 

standard (from an FRA Class I track standard). This work is being cleared under a separate NEPA 

Categorical Exclusion document.

2.0 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Proposed Action isto address existing congestion along ACWR’srailroad line. Reducing 

congestion would improve viability and long-term sustainability of freight rail service from Charlotte to 

Raleigh. Elements of the Proposed Action that reduce congestion and enhance viability include:

• Increased storage to reduce mainline congestion (storage and passing sidings)

• Additional switching tracks to sort and re-order railcars (switching and storage yards)

• Additional rail-served warehouse within metropolitan area (warehouse)

The project need is due to increased congestion, increased demands related to Precision Scheduled 

Railroading (PSR) operational changes, and a lack of rail-served industry in the Charlotte MSA. The needs 

are further detailed below.

Congestion 

Traffic Patterns – An increase in unit train traffic coming from Charlotte to Candor creates congestion on 

the existing rail line. Inadequate tracks to clear the mainline for westbound traffic results in a half-day 

delay for eastbound traffic. Currently, westbound traffic is delayed for half a day to wait for eastbound 

traffic to clear the mainline. The additional storage and passing sidings would allow for better flow of 

traffic with shipments coming from three interchanges by three different railroads. Additionally, storage 

and passing sidings would improve system and service performance on the Piedmont and Sandhills 

Divisions by reducing the congestion caused by the need to store cars on the mainline. By adding sidings 

and yards, the project would increase ACWR capacity, mitigate traffic congestion, improve equipment 

cycle time, drastically reduce mainline track blockages, and provide adequate track space for increased 

switching activities.

Storage – At any one time, the existing rail line may have up to five 90-car trains on the line which must 

be staged and temporarily stored. This has caused frequent congestion, blocking of road crossings, service 

delays, and inefficiencies for traincrews. The current PSR climate has forced shippers to store fewer 

railcars on Class I’s and more railcars on shortline railroads. The ACWR line has had over 750 railcars stored 

on the mainline at estimated peak levels. Additional storage yards will provide much needed congestion 

relief along the ACWR line.

Sorting and Reordering – Increased inbound miscellaneous commodity traffic requires frequent switching

and re-ordering for customers. Multiple switches are required per day for commodities that must be 

delivered in a sequential order as requested by the customer. The ACWR needs additional switching tracks 

to perform the sorting and re-ordering of railcars due to recent traffic pattern changes, and it struggles 
10 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

operationally to find places to perform such switching activities. This would enhance the railroad’s 

productivity by reducing operational inefficiencies, increasing equipment cycle times to avoid congestion 

issues and blockage of road crossings, which increases service delays and inefficiencies for train crews.

Operational Changes 

The ACWR is required to sequence outbound loads in order of each railcar’s end destination. Additionally, 

Class I railroad companies have begun to use interchange yards to perform their own switching instead of 

traditional hump yards. The ACWR struggles operationally to find places to perform such switching 

activities.

Rail-served Industry 

Charlotte MSA’s growth and lack of viable rail-served buildings add to commercial traffic on the highway 

system and have increased industrial rental rates to all-time highs. There are repeated requests from 

existing and prospective rail customers for a modern rail-served warehouse and distribution facility in the 

area. Current raw plastics customers require covered square footage to manipulate bulk products into 

various smaller packaging forms. A warehouse and distribution facility would offer direct access to rail, 

avoiding additional highway congestion while providing affordable rail-served space to facilitate growth 

of rail-based transportation.

3.0 Alternatives

This EA includes the review of two alternatives, the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative. The NoBuild Alternative constitutes the “Do Nothing” Alternative where none of the proposed improvements 

would be constructed. Each alternative is described below.

3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative involves taking no action to improve congestion on the ACWR line. The existing 

rail line would remain operational in its existing configuration. Regularly scheduled maintenance activities 

would continue to take place. The No-Build Alternative would fail to meet the purpose and need for the 

Proposed Action, and congestion on the railroad would continue to impact operations. A No-Build 

Alternative is included in this EA as a baseline to compare potential impacts with the Build Alternative.

3.2 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative includes the improvements at the five Sites as summarized in Table 2. Table 2 

provides a summary of proposed activities along with a map of the Study Area and a photo for each Site.

Detailed mapping of the Build Alternative is included in Appendix A. The Build Alternative would meet the 

project’s purpose and need.
11 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 2: Build Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Mint Hill Siding 

 

Construction of 5,000 track feet of new 

storage and passing siding along the 

existing railroad located between 

Albemarle Road and I-485. This work 

would include minor earth work (fill) to 

establish the grading necessary to 

construct the additional track.

Construction of this siding would be minor

in intensity and short in duration, with 

construction anticipated to take 

approximately 3 months. The existing rail 

would remain operational during 

construction.

Mint Hill Siding looking west at HWY 24/27 bridge.
12 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 2: Build Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse 

 

Construction of new storage track spurs 

and warehouse on a 66-acre property 

located along Allen Station Road. 

Construction activities include grading for 

new roads, parking area, loading docks, 8 

new storage track spurs totaling 18,000 

track feet, stormwater basins, and an 

approximate 200,000-400,000 square-foot 

warehouse. This work would include earth 

work (cut and fill) to establish the grading 

necessary to construct the storage yard, 

warehouse, parking and road network 

along with stormwater facilities. 

Construction of this storage yard and 

warehouse would be moderate in intensity 

and duration, with construction 

anticipated to take approximately 18

months. The existing rail would remain 

operational during construction.

Mint Hill Warehouse site, looking north.
13 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 2: Build Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Midland Siding 

 

Construction of 3,100 track feet of new 

storage and passing siding approximately 2 

miles east of Midland, NC. This work would

include moderate earth work (fill) to 

establish the grading necessary to 

construct the additional track. Two culvert 

pipes would be extended to accommodate 

the additional fill slope. Construction of 

this siding would be minor in intensity due 

to minimal disturbance and earth work 

within ROW and short in duration, with 

construction anticipated to take 

approximately 3 months. The existing rail 

would remain operational during 

construction.

Midland site, looking east.
14 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 2: Build Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

ACWR HQ Storage Yard 

 

Construction of 12 new storage track spurs 

totaling 20,000 track feet located north of 

the existing ACWR headquarter building. 

This work would include minor earth work 

(cut and fill) to establish the grading 

necessary to construct the storage yard. 

Construction of this storage yard would

include earthwork and stormwater 

faciliites. The work would be minor in 

intensity and duration, with construction 

anticipated to take approximately 6

months. The existing rail would remain 

operational during construction.

ACWR Storage Yard, looking east.
15 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 2: Build Alternative Details 

Proposed Activities Location

Samarcand Siding 

 

Construction of 7,000 track feet of new 

double ended passing and storage siding 

along the existing railroad. This work 

would include minor earth work (fill) to 

establish the grading necessary to 

construct the additional track. 

Construction of this siding would be minor 

in intensity and short in duration, with 

construction anticipated to take 

approximately 3 months. The existing rail 

would remain operational during 

construction.

Samarcand Siding, looking east.
16 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the existing conditions within the Study Area and identifies the potential impacts 

to environmental resources from implementing the alternatives as well as mitigation measures to offset 

impacts. This EA addresses those resources that have the potential to be affected by the Proposed Action.

Resources covered in this section are grouped into the following areas: natural environment, human 

environment, construction period impacts, and indirect and cumulative impacts.

The natural environment includes subjects like air and noise, farmland and forest, wetlands and water 

resources, and threatened and endangered species.

The human environment includes subjects like cultural and historic resources, parks and recreation, 

hazardous waste, land use and demographics, public health and safety, and transportation.

Construction period impacts relate to the temporary impacts that may result during the building 

process. 

Indirect impacts are those impacts that are further removed in time or space while cumulative impacts

represent an accumulative impact to a resource.

Existing environmental resources vary greatly by Site. The Sites within existing rail ROW are currently in

transportation use while the Sites adjacent to the rail ROW are undeveloped tracts of land comprised of 

forests, streams, and wetlands.

The following sections will discuss the Build Alternative’s impact on the environment. The No-Build 

Alternative would have minimal, if any, impacts and is briefly mentioned in each resource section.

To keep this document concise, detailed information, where applicable, can be found in the Appendices.

4.1 Resources Not Included in the Analysis 

Through initial investigation and background research it was determined that the following resources do 

not have a reasonable likelihood to be beneficially or adversely affected by the Proposed Action and, 

therefore, will not be evaluated further:

Coastal Zone Management – The Study Area is not within a coastal zone.

Floodplains – The Study Area does not contain floodplains.

Geology and Seismic Issues – Due to the limited scope of work, no geologic or seismic analysis was 

completed.

Aesthetics and Visual – There would be no impacts to resources that would require aesthetics to be 

considered.

Natural Ecological Systems – Due to the limited scope of work and previously disturbed areas within 

the Study Area, there would be no impacts to natural ecological systems. Consideration of habitats 

takes place in the Threatened and Endangered Species section.

Irreversible Commitment of Natural Resources – The use of nonrenewable resources would represent 

a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the accessibility of these resources 

within the region.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – There are no Wild or Scenic Rivers in or adjacent to the Study Area.
17 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.2 Natural Environment 

The purpose of this section is to describe the characteristics of the natural environment within the area 

affected by the Proposed Action.

4.2.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change 

Identification 

The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for six commonly found air pollutants (criteria pollutants) in the Clean Air Act (CAA). US EPA’s 

General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B) ensures that federal actions comply with the NAAQS 

and requires the lead federal agency to demonstrate that every action it undertakes, approves, permits 

or supports conforms to the appropriate State Implementation Plan (SIP). Federal agencies responsible 

for an action occurring in a nonattainment area are required to determine if the action conforms to the 

applicable SIP. The CAA General Conformity Rule (GCR) requires that any federal action does not create a 

new violation of NAAQS or delay the timely 

attainment of any NAAQS or milestones in the 

state’s SIP.

A federal action is exempt from the GCR 

requirements if the action’s total net emissions are 

below the de minimis threshold or are otherwise 

exempt per 40 CFR 51.153. There are two main 

components to the overall process: an applicability 

analysis to determine whether a conformity 

determination is required and, if required, a 

conformity determination to demonstrate that the 

action conforms to the SIP.

Mecklenburg County is in maintenance for NAAQS

criteria pollutants Ozone and Carbon Monoxide. 

Cabarrus County is in maintenance for Ozone.

Montgomery County and Moore County are in 

attainment for all criteria pollutants and therefore are not included in this analysis. 

An applicability analysis was performed for the Build Alternative to demonstrate conformity with the CAA.

As the Conformity Regulations apply only to pollutants or their precursors that are emitted in designated 

nonattainment or maintenance areas, annual emissions for construction activities and post-construction 

operations were estimated for the Sites occurring in areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance. 

For the Mint Hill Siding and the Mint Hill Storage Yard & Warehouse, located in Mecklenburg County, an 

emissions inventory for carbon monoxide and precursors to ozone (volatile organic compounds [VOC], 

oxides of nitrogen [NOx]) was prepared. For the Midland Siding, located in Cabarrus County, an emissions 

inventory for precursors to ozone (VOC, NOx) was prepared. As Montgomery County and Moore County 

are in attainment for all criteria pollutants, emissions inventories for the ACWR HQ Storage Yard and the 

Samarcand Siding are not required.

An emissions inventory for all construction equipment to be used for grading and track construction at 

Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland Siding was prepared, including 

Criteria pollutants are Carbon Monoxide (CO), 

Ozone, Particulate Matter (PM), Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Lead (Pb).

If the air quality in a geographic area meets or is 

cleaner than the national standard, it is called an 

attainment area. Areas that don't meet the 

national standard are called nonattainment 

areas. Once a nonattainment area meets the 

standards and additional re-designation 

requirements in the CAA, US EPA will designate 

the area as a "maintenance area”.
18 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

dozers, excavators, front end loaders, dump trucks, backhoes, and various other construction and utility 

equipment. Annual emissions for the equipment were calculated in pounds per year (lbs/year) by applying 

an equipment specific emissions factor to the estimated annual usage for each piece of equipment.

Emissions were estimated using “Off-Road – Model Mobile Source Emission Factors” for the year 2022 

from the California South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2020) as federal US EPA 

emission factors were not available.

Emissions from operations within the Study Area was calculated by applying locomotive and heavy-duty 

truck emission factors to estimated annual usage of each of these facilities. Emissions from operations at 

Mint Hill and Midland Sidings and the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse were calculated by applying 

US EPA average locomotive and heavy-duty truck emission factors (US EPA-420-F09-025 Emission Factors 

for Locomotives and US EPA-420-F-08-027 Average In-Use Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks) to 

estimated annual usage at each of these facilities. For the Mint Hill and Midland Sidings and the Mint Hill 

Rail Yard, annual locomotive usage was estimated based on the length of the new rail, the number of daily 

trips, the number of locomotives, and the speed of the trains over the distance of new rail. For operations 

at the Mint Hill Warehouse, tractor trailer emissions were estimated based on an assumed usage of 200 

miles per day per truck. Electric forklifts would be used for loading and unloading of trucks.

Impacts and Mitigation 

Impacts associated with the Build Alternative are provided below. Table 3 presents the annualized total 

criteria pollutant emissions in tons per year (tpy) associated with both construction and operations for 

the Mint Hill Siding and Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse proposed in Mecklenburg County. EPA’s

de minimis emission threshold is 100 tpy.

Table 3: Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - Mecklenburg County 

Facility Emissions Generating 

Activity

CO

(tpy)

VOC 

(tpy)

NOx

(tpy)

Mint Hill Siding

Construction 0.7 0.2 1.8

Operations 0.7 0.3 4.9

Mint Hill Rail Yard

Construction 1.5 0.3 3.5

Operations 0.4 0.2 2.8

Mint Hill Warehouse

Construction 2.6 0.5 5.0

Operations 1.9 0.4 7.4

Total Annual Estimated Project Emissions (tpy) 7.8 1.9 25.4 

EPA de minimis emission levels (tpy) 100 100 100

Table 4 presents the annualized total criteria pollutant emissions in tons per year associated with both 

construction and operations for the Midland Siding proposed in Cabarrus County.
19 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 4: Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions - Cabarrus County 

Facility Emissions Generating 

Activity

VOC

(tpy)

NOx

(tpy)

Midland Siding

Construction 0.2 1.7

Operations 0.2 3.3

Total Annual Estimated Project Emissions (tpy) 0.4 5.0 

EPA de minimis emission levels (tpy) 100 100

Based on the data presented in Tables 3 and 4, none of the criteria pollutant emissions concentrations for 

the proposed Sites in Mecklenburg County or Cabarrus County are predicted to exceed the General 

Conformity de minimis threshold limits and a formal General Conformity Determination is not needed. No 

mitigation is required.

The No-Build Alternative would not alter existing conditions as no additional emissions associated with 

construction activities or from proposed changes in train operations would occur. Under No-Build 

conditions, a slight increase in emissions could potentially occur over time due to a decrease in train 

speeds as a result of increased congestion along the rail lines.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

The assessment of a proposed transportation improvements’ effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

including potential increases and reductions to the contributing gases (such as carbon dioxide [CO2]), is 

complex and is typically evaluated on a regional level. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

recognizes that transportation has been identified as one of the primary sources of GHG emissions 

because of the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel used by motorized vehicles. Final 

guidance from the CEQ on consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change 

is currently under review.

CO2 makes up the largest component of GHG emissions. Other prominent transportation GHGs include 

methane (CH4) and NOx. Currently, no national standards have been established regarding GHGs, nor has 

the US EPA established criteria or thresholds for ambient GHG emissions pursuant to its authority to 

establish transportation emission standards for CO2 under the CAA. GHGs are different from other air 

pollutants evaluated in federal environmental reviews because their impacts are not localized or regional 

due to their rapid dispersion into the global atmosphere, which is characteristic of these gases. GHG 

emissions affect the entire planet.

The Build Alternative would reduce road and rail congestion thereby reducing GHG emissions. Shifting 

freight from less efficient highway and/or air travel to more efficient rail movement would have a positive 

impact by reducing GHG emission. While there are some offsetting increases in emissions from the 

additional operations of the rail and transit vehicles, a net improvement is anticipated. The GHG emissions 

levels resulting from the Proposed Action are not expected to cause an increase in overall GHG emissions 

and therefore detailed analysis is not warranted. No mitigation is required.

The No-Build Alternative would have a negative impact on GHG emissions by allowing the congestion and 

less efficient travel to continue.
20 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

Identification 

Due to the nature and scope of the storage passing and sidings, a review of environmental exclusions 

listed within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was performed. Although the FRA is the designated 

Federal lead agency responsible for the environmental review for the Proposed Action, per 23 CFR Part 

771.116(d), FRA may approve an action qualifying as a categorical exclusion under the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) environmental regulations (23 CFR Part 771.118) when the applicable requirements 

of those sections have been met. Mint Hill Siding, Midland Siding and Samarcand Siding would be 

constructed within existing ROW for temporary storage of trains. The proposed sidings would occupy 

substantially the same geographic footprint (within rail ROW) and do not change the functional use of the 

rail; therefore, the sidings are exempt from a noise and vibration analysis as described in 23 CFR Part 

771.118(c):

Actions that FTA determines fall within the following categories of FTA CEs and that meet 

the criteria for CEs in the CEQ regulation (40 CFR 1508.4) and paragraph (a) of this section 

normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FTA. (8) Maintenance, 

rehabilitation, and reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same 

geographic footprint and do not result in a change in functional use, such as: 

Improvements to bridges, tunnels, storage yards, buildings, stations, and terminals; 

construction of platform extensions, passing track, and retaining walls; and improvements 

to tracks and railbeds.

No further analysis is required.

In accordance with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), a 

noise and vibration Impact Analysis was followed for Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse and ACWR 

HQ Storage Yard. The process includes three types of analyses including a screening analysis, a general 

analysis or a detailed analysis. The screening analysis involves identification of the Study Area, which is 

based on the appropriate screening distance for the project type. If no noise-sensitive land uses are 

identified within the Study Area, no further analysis is needed. If one or more noise-sensitive land uses 

are identified within the Study Area, a general noise assessment is required. A general noise assessment 

involves identification of noise sensitive receptors and use of FTA’s noise calculation model to analyze

project noise. Should the project fall under the threshold, no further analysis is required. Projects that are 

not exempted during the screening or general assessment analysis stage would require detailed noise 

analysis which could entail actual monitoring sites and modeling of proposed noise levels. 

A screening analysis was conducted for ACWR HQ Storage Yard. In accordance with the FTA Transit Noise 

and Vibration Assessment Manual Table 4-7, a screening distance of 1,000 feet from the proposed rail 

yard’s LOD was evaluated to determine the existence of noise-sensitive land uses. As no noise-sensitive 

land uses were identified within 1,000 feet of the center of the LOD, no further noise or vibration 

assessment is required. Therefore, the only Site that required a General Noise and Vibration Analysis is 

the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse.

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse

In accordance with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual Table 4-7, a screening distance 

of 1,000 feet from the proposed rail yard’s LOD was evaluated to determine the existence of noisesensitive land uses. Three noise-sensitive land uses were identified within 1,000 feet of the proposed LOD: 
21 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

two Land Use Category 2 (Residential) properties and one Land Use Category 3 (Institutional) property. 

Table 5 presents a description of these land uses and their respective distances from both the existing rail 

line, the proposed rail yard, and the proposed LOD of the development site.

Table 5: Existing Noise Exposure 

Receiver 

ID Description Land Use Category

Noise 

Metric 

(dBA)

Distance 

from 

Existing Rail 

Line (ft)

Distance 

from 

Proposed 

Rail Yard (ft) 

Distance 

from 

Proposed 

LOD (ft)

Estimated 

Existing 

Ambient 

Noise (dBA)

Calculated 

Existing Rail 

Noise Exposure 

(dBA)

Total 

Existing 

Noise Level 

(dBA)

1

12416 

Albemarle Rd

Category 2 

(Residential)

Outdoor 

Ldn 240 1,230 860 60 46 60

2

12530 

Albemarle Rd

Category 2 

(Residential)

Outdoor 

Ldn 215 595 275 60 46 60

3

Rocky River 

High School 

athletic field

Category 3 

(Institutional)

Outdoor 

Leq (1 hr) 1,000 1,150 110 55 36 55

The existing noise exposure level for each of the receivers was determined by estimating the ambient 

noise level (column 8 of Table 5). This estimated ambient noise level excludes existing rail noise exposure 

and represents the highway traffic noise influence of nearby North Carolina Highway 27 (NC 27) and I-485 

upon each of the receivers. Highway traffic noise from NC 27 is the dominant noise source at Receivers 1 

and 2, located within 100 feet of the eastbound lanes of NC 27, with additional noise influence from I-485 

traffic noise, approximately 1,600 feet west of these residences. The existing noise level at Receiver 3 is 

influenced by a mix of traffic noise levels from both NC 27 and I-485. The northernmost Rocky River High 

School athletic field is located approximately 1,500 away from each of these highway traffic noise sources. 

Existing rail noise exposure levels were calculated using the FTA Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet 

(column 9) and logarithmically added to the estimated traffic noise, yielding a total existing noise level 

(column 10). Existing rail operations consist of (on average) 2 daytime pass-bys with 2 diesel locomotives 

per train, 20 rail cars, at a speed of 10 mph on jointed track.

Impacts and Mitigation 

Rail noise exposure levels as a result of the Proposed Action were calculated with the FTA Noise Impact 

Assessment Spreadsheet using the Noise Source Parameters associated with each of the Site’s noise 

sources. Proposed rail operations within the rail yard would consist of 2 nighttime activity periods with 2 

diesel locomotives per train, 15 rail cars (dropping off loads and picking up empties), at a speed of 5 mph 

on jointed track. 

As the receivers are currently exposed to rail noise, noise impact criteria for these receivers considers the 

cumulative effect of both the existing noise and the proposed noise from the Proposed Action at each 

receiver. As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable level of project noise also 

increases, but the total amount that the cumulative noise exposure is allowed to increase is reduced. For 

Receiver 1, with an existing noise exposure level of 60 dBA, the allowable combined total noise exposure 

before a moderate impact is 62 dBA. The same moderate impact criteria of 62 dBA applies to Receiver 2, 

also with an existing noise exposure level of 62. The allowable combined total noise exposure before a 

moderate impact for Receiver 3, with an existing noise exposure level of 55 dBA, is 58 dBA. 
22 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 6 presents the calculated project noise exposure levels (column 9), the cumulative total noise 

exposure levels (column 10), and the moderate impact criteria level (column 11) for each of the receivers. 

Cumulative total noise exposure levels are below moderate impact criteria for all 3 noise-sensitive land 

uses. Therefore, there would be no adverse noise effects from the operation of the Proposed Action. No 

mitigation is required.

Table 6: Proposed Action Noise Exposure 

Receiver 

ID Description Land Use Category

Noise 

Metric 

(dBA)

Distance 

from 

Existing 

Rail Line 

(ft)

Distance 

from 

Proposed 

Rail Yard 

(ft) 

Distance 

from 

Proposed 

LOD (ft)

Total 

Existing 

Noise Level 

(dBA)

Project 

Noise 

Exposure 

(dBA)

Total 

Noise 

Exposure

(dBA)

Allowable Total 

Noise Exposure 

Before Moderate 

Impact (dBA)

Impact 

Magnitude

1

12416 

Albemarle Rd

Category 2 

(Residential)

Outdoor 

Ldn 240 1,230 860 60 48 60 62 None

2

12530 

Albemarle Rd

Category 2 

(Residential)

Outdoor 

Ldn 215 595 275 60 53 61 62 None

3

Rocky River 

High School 

athletic field

Category 3 

(Institutional)

Outdoor 

Leq (1 hr) 1,000 1,150 110 55 37 55 58 None

Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in the ambient noise levels in 

the vicinity of the project. Excavation and grading of the development site, which would involve 

construction activity along the perimeter of the development site LOD is expected to take between 60 

and 70 days. Worst-case construction noise levels were estimated using the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) “Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM)” to calculate a cumulative 

construction noise level at the shortest distance between each of the noise-sensitive receivers and the 

LOD, assuming all excavating, grading, surfacing, and paving equipment in operation at the same time at 

the same location.

The loudest cumulative construction noise level predicted with RCNM for Receiver 1, calculated at a 

distance of 860 feet from the LOD is 60 dBA. The construction noise levels for Receivers 2 and 3, at 

distances of 275 feet and 110 feet from the LOD, were predicted to be 70 dBA and 78 dBA, respectively. 

None of these predicted construction noise levels exceed the FTA General Assessment Construction Noise 

Criteria of 90 dBA (day) or 80 dBA (night).

ACWR will minimize construction noise by implementing specific measures to help mitigate the noise at 

the source. Best practices to minimize construction equipment noise require regular and thorough 

maintenance procedures for all construction equipment. Replacement of failing or ineffective muffling 

and exhaust systems, periodic lubrication of moving parts, and properly tuned engines are necessary in 

order to keep construction equipment noise emissions to a minimum. Proper scheduling and 

implementing duration limits for the noisiest construction events can reduce the severity of noise impacts 

during the construction phase.

For the No-Build Alternative, current noise levels would be unchanged. Therefore, the No-Build 

Alternative would not affect noise levels for the noise-sensitive land uses.
23 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Vibration

Potential vibration impacts were evaluated by applying the Vibration Screening Procedure as presented 

in FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Based upon the vehicle type (steelwheeled/steel-rail vehicles) and the most similar project type (Project Type Number 4 - Intermediate 

Capacity Transit), the critical distance for Land Use Category 2 receptors is 100 feet and the critical 

distance for Land Use Category 3 receptors is 50 feet. As neither of the two residential properties (Land 

Use Category 2) are within 100 feet of the rail or proposed LOD and the Rocky River High School athletic 

field (Land Use Category 3) is not within 50 feet of the rail or LOD, no further vibration analysis is required.

4.2.3 Farmland Resources 

Identification 

Federal actions must identify and take into 

account the potential adverse effects of 

projects that may irreversibly convert farmland 

to non-agricultural uses pursuant to the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 U.S.C.

Parts 4201 - 4209. The Proposed Action would

not impact active agricultural land; however, 

the FPPA still applies. A review of the United 

States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web 

Soil Survey website was undertaken to identify 

Prime Farmland Soils, Soils of Statewide 

Importance and/or Unique Soils. Prime 

farmland, as defined by the USDA, is land that 

has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, 

and oilseed crops and is available for these uses. Farmland Soils of Statewide Importance is land other 

than Prime Farmland which has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the 

production of crops. Unique farmland has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing 

season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields or both 

high quality and high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to acceptable farming 

methods. A review of the Study Area indicated that, while no productive agriculture is present, Prime 

Farmland Soils and/or Soils of Statewide Importance are present at each Site except Samarcand Siding.

Although FPPA soils are present at four of the five Sites, a review of the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) policy indicates that “projects constructed within the existing right-ofway” or “projects located on land already in urban development or used for water storage” are both 

exempt from the provisions of FPPA. Three of the Sites, Mint Hill Siding, Midland Siding, and Samarcand 

Siding (no FPPA Soils present) are all located within the existing right-of-way of the railroad. Furthermore, 

although Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse would not be constructed within the existing right-of-way 

of the railroad, a review of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Urban Maps indicates that the Site is located within 

an urban area. Therefore, Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, Midland Siding and 

Samarcand Siding are exempt from the provisions of FPPA. The fifth Site, ACWR HQ Storage Yard, is not 

exempt from the provisions of FPPA.

FPPA farmland is prime farmland, unique 

farmland, and additional farmland of statewide 

importance as defined by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and based on 

underlying soils types regardless of whether or 

not the farmland soils are in active agricultural 

use.
24 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction of the storage yard at the ACWR HQ Site would convert approximately 18 acres of Soils of 

Statewide Importance. A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) form was prepared for the proposed 

work and submitted to the local NRCS office. Because the score is below 60, no further coordination is 

necessary, and no mitigation is necessary. NRCS coordination can be found in Appendix B.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on farmland.

4.2.4 Forest Resources 

Identification 

Forested communities exist alongside or within the Study Area; however, only one Site would require 

considerable tree removal as part of the Build Alternative: Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse.

Mint Hill Storage and Warehouse – The central portion of this 66-acre parcel was former agricultural 

land that has transitioned into an early successional growth forest. The eastern and western edges of 

the parcel remain established forest and riparian area. The majority of the upland dominant tree 

species observed within the forested areas were white oak, sweetgum, tulip (or yellow) poplar, pignut 

hickory, American beech, and red maple. The dominant shrub and herb observed were southern 

blackberry, Chinese privet, autumn olive, goldenrod and Japanese stilt grass. Saplings were also 

observed but were not considered to be a dominant species. Japanese honeysuckle was the dominant 

woody vine observed in the upland area. 

ACWR HQ Storage Yard would be located on an already tree cleared portion of the Site. Mint Hill Siding, 

Midland Siding, and Samarcand Siding would be constructed within existing ROW.

Impacts and Mitigation 

The Proposed Action would clear 

approximately 28 acres of marginal 

forest and scrub shrub habitat on the 

Mint Hill Storage and Warehouse Site, 

see Figure 3. The other four Sites would

have minimal tree clearing activities.

Tree clearing activities on the Mint Hill 

Storage Yard and Warehouse Site will be 

conducted in accordance with the 

Northern Long-eared Bat guidance 

detailed in section 4.2.7 Threatened and 

Endangered Species. No additional 

mitigation measures are required. The 

far eastern and western portions of the 

Site would remain forested as riparian 

buffers for the wetland and watercourse 

habitat on Site.

The No-Build Alternative would have no 

impact on forest resources. 

Figure 3 - Mint Hill Warehouse project site, looking north.
25 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.2.5 Water Quality 

Identification 

This section analyzes water quality as it relates to public drinking water sources, both surface water and

ground water. In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) created 

under the Clean Water Act of 1972, construction sites with over one acre of disturbance are required to 

address point source discharges into receiving waters. Further, in 1989, the NC General Assembly ratified 

the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act, codified as General Statutes 143-214.5 and 143-214.6. The 

Act mandated the state Environmental Management Commission to adopt minimum statewide water 

supply protection standards for specific watersheds that contribute to surface water supplies (Water 

Supply Watersheds). A review of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) GIS data 

revealed that ACWR HQ Storage Yard and Samarcand Siding are located in Water Supply Watersheds.

Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland Siding are not located within Water 

Supply Watersheds.

ACWR HQ Storage Yard - Water Supply III (WS-III) - Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, 

culinary, or food processing purposes where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not feasible. 

These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately

developed watersheds. 

Samarcand Siding - Water Supply II (WS-II) - Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, 

culinary, or food processing purposes where a WS-I classification is not feasible. These waters are also 

protected for Class C uses. WS-II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds.

There are state riparian buffer protection programs in the Neuse River Basin, Tar-Pamlico River Basin, 

Catawba River Basin, Randleman Lake Watershed, Jordan Lake Watershed and Goose Creek Watershed. 

The Study Area does not include any of these river basins/watersheds and therefore does not require a 

riparian buffer analysis or approval.

According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water 

Resources, Public Water Supply Section One Map, there are no public water supply sources within or 

adjacent to the Study Area.

Impacts and Mitigation 

Due to ACWR HQ Storage Yard location within a Water Supply Watershed, land development would 

require a 30-foot buffer around any watercourse (low density), more stringent erosion and sediment 

controls, and implementation of best management practices. The ACWR HQ Storage Yard design also 

includes a 30-foot buffer around the wetlands on site.

In accordance with NPDES, ACWR will comply by incorporating temporary erosion and sedimentation 

controls during construction to minimize the release of sediment into nearby water sources. Post 

construction, permanent stormwater management systems will be in place at Mint Hill Storage Yard and 

ACWR HQ Storage Yard to comply with NPDES regulations for disturbance over 10 acres. With the abovementioned temporary and permanent controls in place, the Build Alternative would result in minimal 

impacts to water quality.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on water quality.
26 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.2.6 Wetlands and Watercourses 

Identification 

Waters of the United States are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and US EPA under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC 

DEQ) regulates water resources through the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Wetlands and 

watercourses were identified through a combination of onsite investigations and secondary source data

including topographic quadrangles, soil mapping, aerial photography, National Wetlands Inventory, and 

other available mapping for the area in order to determine the presence of regulated resources within 

the Study Area. For an example of a stream located at the Midland Siding Site, see Figure 4. 

Impacts and Mitigation 

Design plans illustrating the Proposed Action, watercourses and wetlands, and site-specific details are 

provided below. The graphics below can be viewed in more detail in Appendix A. The are no regulated 

water resources located within or adjacent to the Mint Hill Siding and Samarcand Siding Sites. Impacts to 

watercourses and wetlands are provided in Table 7.

Figure 4 - Far Branch looking north at Midland site.
27 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse - There are five wetlands, one pond, and five watercourses 

present on this Site, mainly located in the far eastern and western edges of the property, see Figure 5.

The Proposed Action has been designed to avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent practicable. 

Only one watercourse is within the LOD and therefore impacted. There would be no wetland impacts.

Watercourse impacts include a 0.025-acre encroachment on Watercourse 4 due to driveway 

construction. ACWR proposes a culvert in this location and will continue to evaluate minimization

options as the design progresses through final design and into permitting. Standard construction 

methods and controls including approved dewatering and perimeter fencing will be incorporated into 

the design prior to the permitting process by ACWR.

Figure 5 - Wetland and watercourses at Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse Site.
28 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Midland Siding - There are four waterways present on this Site within the LOD, see Figure 6. Outside 

the LOD, there are three wetlands and one additional waterway that would not be impacted.

Watercourse impacts include 0.015-acre encroachment to Far Branch and its tributaries due to culvert 

pipe extension and currently proposed 2:1 fill slope. The current design is likely the worst-case 

scenario. Minimization efforts will take place in final design and may include the investigations 

necessary for retaining wall construction. As design plans progress and permit drawings are developed, 

standard controls including dewatering methods and perimeter fencing will be incorporated by ACWR.

Figure 6 - Wetlands and watercourses at Midland Site.
29 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

ACWR HQ Storage Yard - There are no wetlands or watercourses present within the LOD, see Figure 7.

Outside the LOD are two wetlands and several ephemeral features that would not be impacted. No 

impacts are anticipated at this site. 

Wetlands - Based on field observation and delineation, wetlands are present at three of the Sites: Mint 

Hill Storage and Warehouse, Midland Siding and ACWR HQ Storage Yard. The wetlands are located outside 

each Site’s LOD; therefore, the Proposed Action would have no impact to wetlands.

Watercourses - Based on field observation and delineation, regulated watercourses are present and 

impacted at two of the sites, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse and Midland Siding (Table 7).

Additional features are located on the ACWR HQ Storage Yard site, however, outside the LOD and,

therefore, are not impacted or discussed in this EA.

Figure 7 - Wetlands and watercourses at ACWR HQ Storage Yard Site.
30 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 7: Watercourse Impact by Site 

Site Feature Impact LF Impact AC

Mint Hill Storage Yard and 

Warehouse Watercourse 4 131 0.025

Midland Siding

Far Branch (N) 22 0.005

Stream 1 31 0.002

Stream 2 25 0.002

Stream 3 92 0.006

Total 301 0.040 

Avoidance and minimization efforts have been incorporated into the current design including a 30-foot 

buffer around all regulated resources. Impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable. 

The total impacts for the Proposed Action include an 0.0-acre wetland impact and 301-linear foot (0.040

ac) watercourse impact. The regional conditions for the USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP 39, NWP 14) 

stipulate that mitigation and pre-construction notification may be required for any activity resulting in the 

loss of more than 0.02 acres of stream bed. In final design, ACWR will conduct a Preliminary Jurisdictional 

Determination (PJD) with the USACE as well as determine minimization efforts, final impacts, mitigation 

requirements, and if necessary, mitigation banking options. ACWR will be responsible for obtaining the 

necessary permits prior to construction.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on wetlands and watercourses.

Permitting for the Proposed Action would include USACE Section 404 approval (NWP 14 linear feature, 

NWP 39 for storage yard, warehouse) and NC DEQ 401 Water Quality Certification approval. Permitting 

would take place during final design. Wetland and Watercourse Delineation Reports are located in the 

Appendix C.

4.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Identification 

The Study Area includes urban and natural areas that contain wetlands, streams, and forested habitat.

Threatened and endangered plant and animal species are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. Part 1531 et seq.) (ESA), as codified in 50 CFR Part 17, and North Carolina State Nature 

Preserves Act Parts 143B-135.250. –143B-135.272. The ESA was enacted to protect endangered and

threatened species from becoming extinct. This includes importing, exporting, selling, and transporting 

species. The law also provides for the designation of critical habitat and prohibits destruction of that 

habitat. “Take” as defined under the ESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." 16 U.S.C. Part 1532(19). An incidental 

take is an unintentional, but not unexpected, taking. To determine if any critical habitats or threatened 

and endangered species exist within or adjacent to each site, federal and state databases were accessed 

in September 2021.
31 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC)search 

engine was utilized to identify critical habitat that may occur on each site.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) office was contacted for technical assistance 

regarding documented occurrence of rare, threatened, or endangered species at each site or in the 

vicinity of each site.

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species

A combination of secondary source data including topographic quadrangles, soil mapping, aerial 

photography, National Wetlands Inventory, and other available mapping for the area, federal, and state 

database information, and onsite field investigations took place for the species identified in the IPaC at 

each site (Table 8). The IPaC provided a list of species by site to be considered in the effect analysis for 

the Proposed Action, as indicated by the “x” below.

 Table 8: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 

Site

Northern 

Long-eared 

Bat

Carolina 

Heelsplitter

Schweinitz’s 

Sunflower

Michaux’s 

Sumac

Smooth 

Coneflower

Cape 

Fear 

Shiner

Atlantic 

Pigtoe

Redcockaded 

Woodpecker

Mint Hill Siding x x x x x

Mint Hill Warehouse x x x x x

Midland Siding x x x

ACWR HQ Storage Yard x x x x x

Samarcand Siding x x x x x

Field evaluations were conducted by qualified biologists to identify potentially 

suitable habitat for federally threatened and endangered species protected by 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Impacts 

Based on the historic and current land use activities, the lack of documented 

populations, and the lack of suitable habitat observed during the field 

investigations, FRA determined that there would be “no effect” on the 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower (see Figure 8), Carolina Heelsplitter, Michaux’s Sumac, 

Smooth Coneflower, Cape Fear Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and the Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker. No additional coordination is necessary for these species, see 

Appendix D. 

Due to potential summer roosting habitat for the Northern Long-eared Bat, the 

determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is recommended

and discussed in greater detail below.

Figure 8 - Schweinitz’s 

Sunflower
32 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB)

Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the USFWS to promulgate special rules for species listed as threatened (not 

endangered) that provide flexibility in implementing the ESA. For the Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB), 

the 4(d) rules tailor protections to areas affected by white-nose syndrome during the bat’s most sensitive 

life stages. The rule is designed to protect the bat while minimizing regulatory requirements for 

landowners, land managers, government agencies and others within the specie’s range.

A NLEB field evaluation was completed in the fall of 2021 for the Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard 

and Warehouse, and Midland Siding sites. Potential roost trees (summer habitat) were observed within 

the riparian forest portions of the sites. A review of September 2021 NCNHP records indicates no 

occurrences of NLEB within 1.0 mile of the Study Area. No known, occupied hibernacula were identified 

within 1.0 mile of the Study Area based on review of these NCNHP records.

The 4(d) rule prohibits incidental take that may occur from tree removal activities within 150 feet of a 

known occupied maternity roost tree during the pup season (June 1 through July 31) or within 0.25 miles 

of a hibernation site, year-round. The Proposed Action meets the intent of the 4(d) rules criteria and any 

incidental take would be exempt if the Proposed Action continues to remain in compliance with the 4(d) 

rules. Consultation with USFWS is not required if these criteria do not change and no new information 

regarding NLEB occurrences or hibernaculum within 0.25 mile arises.

A biological conclusion of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”, was recommended per the 4(d) rules. 

Coordination was undertaken with USFWS via the IPaC system for the 4(d) ruling on December 7, 2021 

and is attached in Appendix D.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on federal threatened or endangered species.

Mitigation 

NLEB mitigation in the form of a tree cutting timing restriction is required at three sites including Mint Hill 

Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland Siding. Tree removal activities are prohibited 

from June 1 through July 31. ACWR will add this restriction to the construction sequence and refrain from 

tree cutting from June 1 through July 31.

The Build Alternative would have “no effect” on the Schweinitz’s Sunflower, Carolina Heelsplitter, 

Michaux’s Sumac, Smooth Coneflower, Cape Fear Shiner, Atlantic Pigtoe, and the Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker. No additional coordination or mitigation is necessary for these species. 

USFWS correspondence is located in Appendix D.

State Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on the response provided by NCNHP (dated September 23, 2021) a query of the NCNHP database 

revealed species within 1.0 mile of for each site as outlined in Table 9.
33 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 9: State Threatened or Rare Species 

Site Species

Mint Hill Siding

Tall Larkspur (State Threatened ST) - Last observed: 1800s; 

Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil (ST) - Last observed: August 1951.

City of Charlotte Open Space

Mint Hill Storage Yard and 

Warehouse

Tall Larkspur (ST) - Last observed: 1800s; 

Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil (ST) - Last observed: August 1951.

Mecklenburg County Open Space Nature Preserve

Midland Siding

Rare, State threatened or endangered species: none.

Three Rivers Land Trust Easement

ACWR HQ Storage Yard

Autumn Tiger Beetle (Significantly Rare SR) - Last observed: 8/10/1964.

LBR/Drowning Creek Aquatic Habitat

Samarcand Siding

Autumn Tiger Beetle (SR), - Last observed: 8/10/1964; 

Northern Pinesnake (ST) - Last observed: 5/27/1989.

Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill

Sandhill Streamhead Swamp

Streamhead Canebrake

Eagle Springs Sandhills Natural Area

Impacts and Mitigation 

Based on the historic and current land use practices, lack of documented populations, and lack of habitat, 

the Build Alternative is expected to have “no effect” on the Tall Larkspur, Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil, Autumn 

Tiger Beetle, or Northern Pinesnake; no further coordination is necessary. Similarly, several natural 

communities or conservation/managed areas were noted; however, each was located outside the Study 

Area and would not be affected by the Build Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on state threatened or endangered species or natural 

communities.

NCNHP correspondence is located in Appendix D.

4.3 Human Environment 

The purpose of this section is to describe the characteristics of the human environment within the area 

affected by the Proposed Action.
34 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.3.1 Cultural and Historic Resources 

Regulatory Overview 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires federal 

agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 implementing 

regulations are outlined in 36 CFR Part 800 and define the Section 106 process, which consists of four 

steps: (1) initiation of the Section 106 process; (2) identification and evaluation of historic properties; (3) 

assessment of the effects of an undertaking on historic properties; and (4) resolving adverse effects. As 

defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16, an historic property is any prehistoric or historic site, object, structure, 

building, or district included in or eligible for inclusion, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Affected Environment 

The environmental inventory included a cultural resources desktop review to delineate an area of 

potential effects (APE) and archaeological field reconnaissance of the APE. Fieldwork was conducted 

during October and November 2021 by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Qualifications Standards at 36 CFR Part 61. The goal of this field reconnaissance was to assess current site 

conditions to ascertain whether the APE has the potential to contain intact archaeological resources or

above-ground structures as well as to provide site-specific information to support Section 106 

consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (NC SHPO).

As a result of the investigations, no extant above-ground structures were identified within the APE. Four 

new archaeological sites were recorded (31MK1172, 31MK1173, 31MG2238, and 31MG2239), see 

Table 10. Sites 31MK1172 and 31MK1173 are located within the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse 

site, and site 31MG2238 and 31MG2239 are located within the ACWR HQ Storage Yard site. None of the

sites are recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Much of the APE has 

been disturbed and eroded by past timbering, clearing, and development activities.

Table 10: Summary of Archaeological Site Data 

Site Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendation

31MK1172 Historic: Mid-19th to 20th c. Domestic Not Eligible; NFW*

31MK1173 Historic: Mid- 20th c. Agricultural Not Eligible; NFW*

31MG2238 Prehistoric: Lithic, Unk. Subperiod Limited Activity Not Eligible; NFW*

31MG2239 Prehistoric: Woodland; 

Historic: Mid-19th to 20th c.

Prehistoric: Short-Term 

Habitation; Historic: Domestic Not Eligible; NFW*

* No Further Work 

Section 106 consultation was initiated with the NC SHPO, Catawba Tribe, and Cherokee Tribe via email on 

November 23, 2021. A determination of effects, APE Mapping and the Archeological Reconnaissance 

Report were provided. At NC SHPO’s request, hard copies and CDs were provided on December 1, 2021.
35 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Impacts and Mitigation 

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the FRA has determined, and the NC SHPO has agreed by a 

letter dated January 11, 2022, that the undertaking would result in no historic properties affected. The 

Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects (January 11, 2022), which documents this information, can 

be found in Appendix E. No mitigation is required. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on cultural resources. 

4.3.2 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parks and Recreation 

Identification 

Section 4(f) refers to Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 codified in 

Federal law at 49 U.S.C. 303. Section 4(f) specifies that US Department of Transportation agencies,

including FRA, cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, or historical sites of national, state, or local significance unless there is no feasible and 

prudent alternative to the use of the land and the Proposed Action includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the property. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF) of 1965 

provides matching funds to states and municipalities for improvement or acquisition of outdoor 

recreational facilities. Section 6(f) is independent from Section 4(f) but must be considered during Section 

4(f) compliance. The two laws have a common goal of protecting public recreation facilities.

The Proposed Action would take place on privately-owned commercial properties. A desktop inventory 

did not identify any Section 4(f) properties within the Study Area. There are no national parks, federally 

managed recreational lands, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. Section 106 consultation was used to 

identify historic properties in the Study Area. Section 106 consultation concluded without identifying 

historic properties. According to the North Carolina State Parks Department, which includes state and 

local parks, there are no public recreational facilities adjacent to any of the sites. As there are no public 

recreational properties in or adjacent to the Study Area, no lands or facilities within the Study Area have 

been improved through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).

Impacts and Mitigation 

There would be no impacts to Section 4(f)/6(f) resources as a result of the Proposed Action as no Section 

4(f)/6(f) resources are present within the Study Area. No mitigation is required.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on Section 4(f)/6(f) resources or parks and recreation. 

4.3.3 Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material 

Identification 

The Study Area is within or adjacent to active railroads; therefore, the potential for residual contaminants

exists at each of the Sites. In order to identify additional potential waste concerns, an online review of the 

US EPA’s Search for Superfund Sites Where You Live website, US EnviroFacts website, and the NC DEQ’s

online Waste Management GIS Data and Maps was undertaken in October 2021 for each of the Sites. 

Mint Hill Siding - A review of online resources identified a potential waste concern south of the railroad 

ROW. W. K. Baucom, Inc. Equipment Yard is listed as a property with a Land Use Notice and Restriction 

due to a previous spill from an Underground Storage Tank (UST). Although the Notice and Restriction 
36 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

does not extend into the railroad ROW itself, the potential for contaminated groundwater or soil exists. 

However, online records indicated that the groundwater flow in the area is in a southern direction. 

Given that the railroad is approximately 300 feet north of the spill location and the groundwater flow 

is away from the railroad, it is unlikely contamination from this site would impact the Proposed Action. 

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse - A review of online resources did not identify waste sites 

within or adjacent to the Site. There was one waste site located less than 1,000 feet from the Study 

Area, which was listed as an UST Incident. However, a review of the available files indicated that 

contaminants from the site were leaching in a northward direction. Given that the site is south of the 

identified waste site, no contamination is expected. 

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted in 2013 for the Mint Hill Storage Yard 

and Warehouse Site, located in Appendix F. The Phase I Report included the necessary data search, 

background research, interviews, site visit, records review and recommendations. While construction 

debris and miscellaneous trash were observed, no evidence of hazardous materials was observed or 

identified. Prior to ACWR’s acquisition of the property, the trash and debris were removed.

Midland Siding - A review of online resources did not identify waste sites within or adjacent to the 

Site. Therefore, beyond the possible presence of contaminants along the existing rail line, there are no 

hazardous waste concerns. 

ACWR HQ Storage Yard - A review of online resources did not identify waste sites within or adjacent 

to the Site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted in 2013 for this site, see 

Appendix F. The Phase I Report included the necessary data search, background research, interviews, 

site visit, records review and recommendations. No evidence of hazardous materials was observed or 

identified.

Samarcand Siding - A review of online resources did not identify any waste sites located within or 

adjacent to the Site. Therefore, beyond the possible presence of contaminants along the existing rail 

line, there are no hazardous waste concerns.

ACWR hauls hazardous material on their rail line in accordance with the US EPA, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), and FRA policies and standards. A recent inspection (2021) was 

completed by FRA to ensure ACWR’s training, compliance, and permits were up to date. No issues were 

identified. Each shipper provides hazmat paperwork for train crews that provides essential information 

on the product and emergency response details. Each rail car has emergency contact information 

stenciled on the car and is monitored daily in accordance with regulatory requirements. ACWR has also 

partnered with local first responders to provide onsite training in conjunction with the Short Line Safety 

Institute.

Impacts and Mitigation 

Prior Phase I Environmental Site Assessments were conducted at two of the five Sites within the Study 

Area. The end result of these previous studies indicated no further action was required. Commensurate 

with the scope of work at the additional Sites within the Study Area, a review of online records did not 

reveal the presence of hazardous waste.

Should contaminated materials be encountered, ACWR will dispose of all materials properly and in 

accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on hazardous waste or hazardous material.
37 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.3.4 Land Use 

Identification 

The Study Area is located in four counties in central North Carolina along an existing railroad corridor 

stretching from Charlotte to Candor. Zoning in the Study Area was analyzed and mapped as shown on 

Figure 9. For more detailed mapping please see Appendix A.

Mint Hill Siding, Midland Siding, and Samarcand Siding - The passing and siding Sites are within the 

existing railroad ROW and are surrounded by a mix of undeveloped forested/agricultural areas and 

residential land uses. The land use within the Study Area is transportation. Zoning adjacent to the 

siding includes a mix of mainly residential, with commercial and industrial uses.

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse – The Site is located on land owned by ACWR. The Site is 

bounded on the north by the active ACWR rail line, on the south by Allen Station Road, on the east by 

commercial/industrial development, and on the west by undeveloped forested land. The land use 

within the Site is former agricultural fields and mixed forest. Infrastructure remains from previous 

development attempts including stormwater facilities, road grading, and utilities. The parcel is zoned 

commercial. Zoning adjacent to the property includes a mix of mainly industrial, with commercial, 

residential, and institutional (Rocky River High School) uses.

ACWR HQ Storage Yard – The Site’s limit of disturbance is surrounded by commercial uses (ACWR 

Headquarters) and undeveloped forested and agricultural land. The land use within the limit of 

disturbance is cleared commercial land. The parcel is zoned industrial. Zoning adjacent to the property 

includes a mix of industrial and residential uses.

Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction of the Proposed Action would alterthe land use at the Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse 

and ACWR HQ Storage Yard Sites. The land use would change from open/forested land to commercial and 

industrial land uses but would remain consistent with current zoning. No mitigation is required. There 

would be no change in land use for the Mint Hill, Midland, and Samarcand Siding Sites. 

The Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse Site is within the Charlotte MSA and is zoned for general 

industrial use. Similarly, the ACWR HQ Storage Yard Site is zoned for industrial use. The land use changes 

are within areas or properties that are slated for development and would bring employment opportunities 

to the area. The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on land use or zoning.

4.3.5 Demographics/Environmental Justice 

Identification 

The Proposed Action would take place in five distinct locations around Charlotte (to the west) and Candor

(to the east). The western three Sites (Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland 

Siding) are located in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties while the two eastern Sites (ACWR HQ Storage 

Yard and Samarcand Siding) are located in Montgomery and Moore Counties. General demographic data 

were gathered from the EPA’s EJSCREEN website in the fall of 2021. 

39 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Mecklenburg County has a total population of 992,514 with an average household income of $64,509. 

Residents who live below the poverty level is 11.6% whereas that number is 14.7% for the state of 

North Carolina. The minority population comprises 46.2% of the total population whereas that number 

is 31.3% for the state of North Carolina. 

Cabarrus County has a total population of 187,661 with an average household income of $69,297. 

Residents who live below the poverty level is 10.2% whereas that number is 14.7% for the state of 

North Carolina. The minority population comprises 29.5% whereas that number is 31.3% for the state 

of North Carolina.

Montgomery County has a total population of 27,509 with an average household income of $47,757. 

Residents who live below the poverty level is 17.7% whereas that number is 14.7% for the state of 

North Carolina. The minority population comprises 24.4% whereas that number is 31.3% for the state 

of North Carolina.

Moore County has a total population of 91,576 with an average household income of $59,471. 

Residents who live below the poverty level is 11.3% whereas that number is 14.7% for the state of 

North Carolina. The minority population comprises 17.8% whereas that number is 31.3% for the state 

of North Carolina.

In order to analyze whether potential environmental 

justice populations are present within the Study Area

in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 

FR 7629), demographic data were compiled from the 

US Census Bureau for each Site’s block groups and 

census tracts. Minorities, as defined by the US Census 

Bureau, are composed of several different race 

categories—Black, American Indian, Asian, Pacific 

Islander, Other, and Two or More races. Block groups 

are statistical divisions of census tracts used to present 

data and are generally defined to contain between 600 

and 3,000 people. A block group consists of clusters of 

blocks within the same census tract.

Data were also compiled for the townships (Clear Creek, Harrisburg, Biscoe, and Bensalem Townships), 

counties (Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Montgomery, and Moore), and state (North Carolina) to allow 

comparison of the census tracts and block groups of the referenced area. These data are summarized in 

tabular format (Table 11). Where block groups with minority and low-income populations greater than 

the county average (blue) are present, EJ populations are considered to be present. Table 11 identifies 

the block groups in the Study Area considered to have potentially concentrated environmental justice 

populations (red). However, since data for low-income populations were not available at the block group 

level, comparisons were made using the census tract, which was the smallest geographical area for which 

data were available. 

Environmental Justice (EJ) refers to the 

implementation of Executive Order (EO) 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, which directs procedures to be put in 

place to identify and address disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income population 

groups.
40 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 11: Environmental Justice Analysis 

Site Geographies Minority Low Income

 North Carolina 31.32 14.7

 

Mecklenburg County 46.21 11.6

 

Clear Creek Township 32.13 7.2

Mint Hill Siding 

 

Census Tract: 56.20 67.25 13.1

Block Group 2 66.48 *

Mint Hill Warehouse 

Census Tract: 57.06 29.81 9.1

Block Group 2 33.79 *

 

Census Tract: 56.21 51.32 4.3

Block Group 2 70.75 *

 

Cabarrus County 29.46 10.2

 Harrisburg Township 29.15 3.7

Midland Siding 

Census Tract: 416.01 13.22 7.8

Block Group 3 17.97 *

 Montgomery County 24.37 17.7

 Biscoe Township 27.57 19.1

ACWR HQ Storage Yard 

Census Tract: 9605 25.55 24.4

Block Group 2 39.12 *

 Moore County 17.80 11.3

 Bensalem 20.68 10.7

Samarcand Siding 

Census Tract 9503.02 18.01 6.1

Block Group 1 19.13 *

* Data were not available

Mint Hill Siding - Minority and low-income populations have been identified within the Study Area, 

adjacent to the Site. The Site is located entirely within the railroad ROW; therefore, there would be no 

direct impacts to adjacent properties, residences, or businesses in the area. The Proposed Action 

would increase the efficiency of the railroad, which would reduce wait times at nearby at-grade 

crossings, shorten travel time for the traveling public, and reduce EMS response times. The Proposed 

Action would not result in the loss of jobs near the Site or cause disruption to public transit systems. 

The Proposed Action upgrades an existing facility and would not affect community cohesion. The

Proposed Action is unlikely to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ populations.
41 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse - Minority and low-income populations have been identified 

within the Study Area, adjacent to the Site. The Site is located on property that is owned by ACWR and 

does not require acquisition of adjacent land or displacement of residences or businesses. The 

construction is expected to have limited environmental impacts. The construction of a new 

commercial/industrial Site has the potential to bring new jobs to the community, thereby resulting in 

an overall positive economic impact. The construction is not expected to affect community cohesion 

or local land use since the area is already zoned for and part of the industrial/commercial Charlotte

MSA. The Proposed Action is unlikely to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ

populations.

Midland Siding - No EJ populations were identified within the Study Area, adjacent to the Site. The 

Proposed Action is unlikely to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ populations.

ACWR HQ Storage Yard - Minority and low-income populations have been identified within the Study 

Area, adjacent to the Site. The Site is located on property that is owned by ACWR and does not require 

acquisition of adjacent land or displacement of residences or businesses. Construction is expected to 

have minor environmental impacts. The construction of a new storage yard has the potential to bring 

jobs to the community, thereby resulting in an overall positive economic impact. The parcel is 

appropriately zoned for industrial use and would not affect community cohesion. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action is unlikely to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ populations. 

Samarcand Siding - Minority and low-income populations have been identified within the Study Area, 

adjacent to the Site. The Site is located entirely within the railroad ROW; therefore, there would be no 

direct impacts to adjacent properties, residences, or businesses in the area. The increased efficiency 

of the railroad would reduce wait times at nearby at-grade road crossings, shorten travel time for the 

traveling public, and reduce EMS response times. The construction would not result in the loss of jobs 

within the Site or cause disruption to public transit systems. Since this is an upgrade of an existing 

facility, construction would not affect community cohesion. Therefore, the Proposed Action is unlikely 

to have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on EJ populations.

Impacts and Mitigation 

The Proposed Action would have a direct and positive impact on EJ populations by providing employment 

in the form of construction jobs and new opportunities. The warehouse facility would require additional 

staff to receive, store, package, and ship items. Job creation could include between 40-50 positions which 

would benefit the state and local economy.

The Proposed Action would not require displacements or acquisition of land, would increase efficiency of 

trains which would reduce wait times at local road crossings, reduce EMS response times, and bring 

employment opportunities to the area. The Proposed Action is unlikely to have a disproportionately high 

and adverse effect on EJ populations. The Proposed Action is likely to have a positive impact on the local 

economy, therefore no mitigation is proposed. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact (positive or negative) on the communities along the 

corridor. 
42 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.3.6 Public Health, Safety, and Security 

Identification 

The current and proposed public health, safety, and security elements for the Proposed Action are 

summarized in this section.

Public Health – ACWR adheres to standard internal safety parameters when dealing with critical 

operations and railroad crossing incidents and derailments. These parameters include contact 

information of required staff, site assessment protocol (in case of incident or derailment), and 

emergency contact information. Site assessment protocol includes assessing the location, safety of 

those involved, site assessment for hazardous material release, damage or leaks, injuries, distance to 

populated areas, nearby waterways, and assessment of utilities or other hazards. Emergency contact 

information by location and mile post and Chemtrec contact information to assist first responders 

during incidents involving hazardous materials are also included. 

Site Safety and Security- The storage and passing sidings are located within existing ROW and would 

benefit from the same protections and security elements that exist today. Interaction with vehicular 

traffic occurs at the Mint Hill Siding site (two private crossings) and at the Samarcand Siding site (one 

private crossing). Safety and security at Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse and ACWR HQ Storage 

Yard would be addressed via a site-specific safety and security plan.

At-grade Road Crossings - Railcars staged on the mainline block major road crossings for customers 

and the general public. There are no public at-grade crossings within the Study Area; however, the rail 

capacity improvements brought about by the Proposed Action would have positive impacts on nearby 

grade crossings by minimizing wait times and increasing efficiency of train movements. Numerous

letters of support have been received from community leaders, business stakeholders, government 

entities including, but not limited to, County governments, town governments, EMS providers, and 

private businesses and customers. These letters can be viewed in Appendix G. Stakeholders agree that 

the Proposed Action would improve the ability to properly store and move railcars through 

communities to help mitigate potential emergency situations and general at-grade crossing 

congestion.

Impacts and Mitigation 

Existing and proposed measures related to incident response, derailments, and site safety and security 

address potential safety and security concerns. The Proposed Action would positively impact at-grade 

crossing congestion and safety outside the Study Area by alleviating operational bottlenecks, which 

happen daily. The storage yards and passing sidings would decrease wait times for the traveling public 

and EMS responders at at-grade crossings to create a safer environment. Additionally, warehouse 

development would reduce the need for truck traffic on local roadways, thereby decreasing the potential 

for truck-car conflicts. This reduction would improve the overall safety and traffic flow on local roadways. 

These positive impacts would not require mitigation. Construction documents will include requirements 

to coordinate with property owners prior to work taking place at the three private crossings within the 

Study Area.

Under the No-Build Alternative existing conditions would remain. There would be no safety improvements 

other than those that would occur as a result of regularly scheduled maintenance along the rail line.
43 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.3.7 Transportation and Energy Use 

Identification 

Congestion exists along ACWR’s railroad line. An increase in unit train traffic coming from Charlotte to 

Candor creates congestion on the rail line. Inadequate tracks to clear the mainline for westbound traffic 

result in a half-day delay for eastbound traffic. At any one time, the existing rail line may have up to five 

90-car trains on the line which must be staged and temporarily stored. This has caused frequent 

congestion, blocking of road crossings, service delays, and inefficiencies for traincrews. These 

inefficiencies in movement, storage, switching, and maneuvering require more energy use and both rail 

and vehicular transportation delays.

Impacts and Mitigation 

The Proposed Action would improve two main transportation issues: track congestion and train 

movement. The ability to park and store railcars on sidings and within new storage yards would reduce 

vehicle wait times and congestion at public road crossings. The addition of available passing sidings would 

allow for the turning of trains without halting oncoming locomotives due to lack of available siding and 

would help to make cargo shipments more efficient. More details related to at-grade crossing 

improvements as related to Public Safety is discussed in Section 4.3.6.

Hauling goods consumes energy, however, some modes of transport are more efficient than others. Rail 

transport is known to be more fuel efficient, consume less energy, haul more freight at one time and 

therefore emit fewer greenhouse gases. As emission standards continue to tighten, rail will be sought out 

as a greener and more sustainable form of transport particularly for heavy bulk commodities such as grain, 

steel, and aggregates, all of which are currently hauled along this rail line. In 2019, the most recent year 

for which data is available, ACWR customers collectively shipped 18,000 railcars, which avoided the use 

of 72,000 less-efficient long-haul trucks that year. Reducing congestion along this rail line, by allowing 

trains to maneuver, pass, and turn, would improve the efficiency, resulting in an anticipated decrease in 

energy consumption. The Mint Hill Warehouse would serve the public by reducing truck traffic and create 

a more efficient means of moving goods in the Charlotte MSA. 

Currently, FRA has no established threshold to determine a significant impact under energy use; however, 

it is likely congestion relief of the Build Alternative would have a positive impact on the surrounding 

transportation network and environment by way of safer at-grade crossings and more efficient rail 

movements. Similarly, the continued growth of a greener, more sustainable form of transport would

continue the reduction in energy use. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed.

The No-Build Alternative would have a negative impact on transportation and energy use due to the 

continued congestion and inefficiencies along the existing rail line. The surrounding transportation 

network would continue to suffer from blocked railroad crossings which would affect side road 

movements and reduce cargo movements for the rail customers and result in more energy use due to

idling time or detouring.
44 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

4.4 Construction Period Impacts 

4.4.1 Identification 

Construction of the Proposed Action is anticipated to take between two and three years. Final sequencing 

of construction would take place during final design, however preliminary construction start dates and 

durations are provided below.

1 - Mint Hill Storage Yard Quarter 1 2023 (approx. 6 months)

2 - Midland Passing Siding Quarter 2 2023 (approx. 3 months) 

3 - Mint Hill Passing Siding Quarter 3 2023 (approx. 3 months)

4 - ACWR HQ Storage Yard Quarter 4 2023 (approx. 6 months)

5 - Samarcand Siding Quarter 1 2024 (approx. 3 months)

6 - Mint Hill Warehouse Quarter 1 2024 (approx. 12 months)

Resources that may experience short-term construction period impacts include:

Economy and employment - construction would generate employment opportunities including 

consulting oversight and construction jobs at the sidings, storage yards, and warehouse.

Air quality – minor air quality impacts would occur from construction equipment exhaust emissions 

and dust as described in Section 4.2.1. The impact would be temporary and resolve at the end of 

construction. 

Noise levels – minor noise impacts would occur from the operation of construction equipment as 

described in 4.2.2. The impact would be temporary and resolve at the end of construction.

Access – possible short-term impactsin the form of rerouting or detours at three private road crossings 

along the sidings while work is taking place in that area.

Energy use – impacts would occur from the use of fossil fuels during the operation of construction 

equipment.

Impacts and Mitigation 

The Proposed Action would have minor, short-term construction period impacts on the local economy 

and employment, air quality, noise levels, access at select private crossings, and energy use. While 

temporary impacts related to air quality and noise levels, and to a lesser degree, access and energy use

would be negative in nature, there would be positive impacts to the economy and employment due to 

the creation of construction jobs. 

ACWR would minimize and mitigate the remaining construction period impacts through design and 

construction measures and controls. The construction contract specifications will require that the 

contractor adhere to all federal, state, and local noise abatement and control requirements. Construction 

noise may be controlled by measures including but not limited to having construction equipment in good 

repair and fitted with “manufacturer recommended” mufflers. Air quality impacts will be mitigated 

through industry standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), such measures could include construction 

equipment that is kept clean, tuned-up, and in good operating condition. During construction, ACWR shall 

implement dust control measures to avoid unnecessary safety or health concerns.
45 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

ACWR will include requirements in the construction documents to coordinate with property owners prior 

to work taking place at the three private crossings within the Study Area. 

The Proposed Action, once constructed, would provide for less idling trains, less congestion, and a more 

efficient transportation network.

The No-Build Alternative would have no construction period impacts.

4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

4.5.1 Identification and Impacts 

Indirect impacts are those that are caused by a project and may occur later in time and are farther 

removed in distance but must be reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts of the Proposed Action include

the potential for public health and safety improvements.

Public health, safety, and security – At-grade road crossings outside the Study Area would be positively 

impacted by the Proposed Action (i.e., congestion mitigation project). The road crossings are farther 

removed from the sites but would benefit from the Proposed Action. The reduced congestion of the 

rail line would reduce at-grade road crossing wait times, which also affect EMS response times. This 

would be a positive impact on the surrounding communities and overall transportation network.

Cumulative impacts are “environmental effects resulting from the incremental effects of an activity when 

added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities 

undertake such actions.”

Charlotte has experienced significant growth in the recent past with a population and development boom 

in the late 1990s through today. Conversely, the more rural area surrounding Candor has remained fairly 

static during that same span. Resources reviewed in detail for cumulative impacts are those that are 

directly impacted by the Proposed Action and include agriculture, forest habitat, water resources, 

economics, transportation, and noise.

The passing siding locations are wholly contained within railroad ROW and the past, present, and future 

use would be transportation. The siding Sites do not have access to adjacent properties or interact with 

adjacent land uses and include minimal resources; therefore, cumulative impacts would be negligible.

Similarly, the ACWR HQ Storage Yard Site is located within the ACWR HQ property which is currently in 

commercial/industrial use. The development of this area would have minimal environmental impacts and 

negligible cumulative impacts. The Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse Site is located in a highly active 

and developing area within the Charlotte MSA called Clear Creek Commerce development which is 

positioned between I-485, Albemarle Road, and Blair Road. The area includes social and health facilities 

including a school and medical offices, as well as office buildings and other commercial properties. 

Additional properties are under contract or currently for sale. Past, present, and future actions in the 

surrounding area are provided in Table 12.

Mitigation 

Indirect impacts of the Proposed Action would be minor. The Proposed Action would have a positive 

indirect impact on public health and safety; therefore, mitigation is not recommended. The No-Build

Alternative would have negative indirect impacts including continued public health and safety concerns 

in relation to at-grade road crossings and lack of economic stimulus.
46 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Table 12: Past, Present, Future Actions – Clear Creek Commerce area 

Type Past Present Future

Transportation 

I-485, Albemarle Road, 

Norfolk Southern Railroad

Cresswind road network

I-485, Independence Blvd 

widening and express lanes

ACWR Storage Yard, 

Mint Hill Passing

ACWR corridor rehabilitation 

Social/Health 

Rocky River High School, 

Carolinas Healthcare Urgent Care, 

Novant Health Mint Hill Hospital, 

CMC Mint Hill Medical Plaza,

Atrium Health Urgent Care

Mint Hill Medical Park expansion 

(Novant Health Parkway)

CHS Medical Campus (Blair Rd),

Nursing and Rehab (Clear Creek 

Commerce Dr)

Commercial 

Arby’s, 

Waffle House, 

QuikTrip Convenient, 

Speedway, 

Griffin Masonry

Wendy’s (Albemarle Rd), 

Exxon/Car Wash (Albemarle Rd)

Mosack Group Distribution (Allen 

Station Drive)

E.R. Services (Allen Station Drive)

Casanova Siding (Allen Station 

Drive)

Air Care Heating and Cooling 

(Allen Station Drive)

Retail Grocery

(Rocky Rd Church Rd),

Clear Creek Business Park 

(Allen Station Rd – 177 ac),

ACWR Mint Hill Warehouse 

(Allen Station Rd),

4 parcels (Woodland Beaver 

Rd)

Residential 

Woodbury (769 homes), 

Hawthorne (300 apartments), 

Larkhaven (350 homes), 

Cresswind (850 homes, 55+), 

Lemmond Farm (336 apartments)

Larkhaven continued

Cresswind continued

Cumulative impacts resulting from the Proposed Action when added to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not be significant. Mitigation is not proposed.

Negative impacts resulting from the Proposed Action, mainly due to the Mint Hill Storage Yard and 

Warehouse Site, include the reduction of agricultural and forested habitat, increase in noise, and a 

negligible impact on water resources. These impacts would be mitigated through an appropriate 

permitting and stormwater controls. There would be a positive influence on economics by way of job 

creation. Transportation would also be positively impacted with the more efficient rail line and better 

connectivity in the area. The Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse is within the Charlotte MSA, which is 

targeted for growth and has been primed for development with the addition of utilities and a

transportation network. This type of infill development along an existing rail line would benefit the 

surrounding communities by concentrating development in growth areas near existing infrastructure.

The improvements to the existing rail line have minimal environmental impacts and the new development 

including the warehouse and storage yards are within limits of existing development, where growth is 

targeted. While minor indirect and cumulative impacts to resources may occur due to the Proposed 

Action, it is not likely to reach a “tipping point” and warrant a more detailed analysis or mitigation. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no indirect or cumulative impacts as the Proposed Action would not 

be constructed.
47 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

5.0 Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures

During the design process, consideration was given to avoid impacts where possible, while minimizing 

impacts where practicable. For those impacts that cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be 

implemented. In some cases, mitigation is only a commitment to complete additional steps prior to or 

during construction. Mitigation commitments are the responsibility of ACWR. Below is a list of mitigation

items required for the Proposed Action.

Water Quality – Due to ACWR HQ Storage Yard location within a Water Supply Watershed, land 

development will require a 30-foot buffer around any watercourse (low density), more stringent 

erosion and sediment controls, and implementation of best management practices. The ACWR HQ 

Storage Yard design also includes a 30-foot buffer around the wetlands on site. In accordance with 

NPDES, ACWR will comply by incorporating temporary erosion and sedimentation controls during 

construction to minimize the release of sediment into nearby water sources. Post construction, 

permanent stormwater management systems will be in place at Mint Hill Storage Yard and ACWR HQ 

Storage Yard to comply with NPDES regulations for disturbance over 10 acres.

Watercourses – Avoidance and minimization efforts have been incorporated into the current design 

including a 30-foot buffer around all regulated resources. Impacts have been minimized to the extent 

practicable. 

The regional conditions for the USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP 39, NWP 14) stipulate that mitigation 

and pre-construction notification may be required for any activity resulting in the loss of more than 

0.02 acres of stream bed. In final design, ACWR will conduct a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 

(PJD) with the USACE as well as determine minimization efforts, final impacts, mitigation requirements, 

and if necessary, mitigation banking options. ACWR will be responsible for obtaining the necessary 

permits prior to construction. Permitting for the Proposed Action would include USACE Section 404 

approval (NWP 14 linear feature, NWP 39 for storage yard, warehouse) and NC DEQ 401 Water Quality 

Certification approval. Permitting would take place during final design.

Threatened and Endangered Species – NLEB mitigation in the form of a tree cutting timing restriction 

is required at three sites including Mint Hill Siding, Mint Hill Storage Yard and Warehouse, and Midland 

Siding. Tree removal activities are prohibited from June 1 through July 31. ACWR will add this 

restriction to the construction sequence and refrain from tree cutting from June 1 through July 31.

Noise - Best practices to minimize construction equipment noise require regular and thorough 

maintenance procedures for all construction equipment. Replacement of failing or ineffective muffling 

and exhaust systems, periodic lubrication of moving parts, and properly tuned engines are necessary 

in order to keep construction equipment noise emissions to a minimum. Proper scheduling and 

implementing duration limits for the noisiest construction events can reduce the severity of noise 

impacts during the construction phase.

Air Quality – During construction, the contractor shall implement dust control measures to avoid

unnecessary safety or health concerns.

Hazardous Waste - Should contaminated materials be encountered, all materials will be disposed of 

properly and in accordance with all federal state, and local regulations.

Public Safety - Construction documents will include requirements to coordinate with property owners 

prior to work taking place at the three private crossings within the Study Area.
48 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

6.0 Coordination and Consultation

Public and Agency coordination was undertaken as part of the NEPA process. Due to the limited scope 

and scale of the Proposed Action, limited outreach was undertaken. Three of the sites are located within 

existing railroad ROW and the other two sites are located on land adjacent to the rail owned by ACWR.

6.1 Public Involvement 

Public comments are now being solicited on this EA. FRA is accepting public comments related to this EA 

during a public comment period that will extend for a minimum of 30 days after publication of the EA. 

Comments may be submitted via email to kevin.wright@dot.gov or physical mail to:

Kevin Wright

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast

Washington, DC 20590

6.2 Agency Coordination 

An initial agency letter announcing the Proposed Action and seeking identification of important issues was 

sent to the following agencies on November 29, 2021.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) National Park Service (NPS) North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ)

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA)

North Carolina Department of Natural and 

Cultural Resources (NC DNCR)

Mecklenburg County

Cabarrus County

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)

North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT)

Montgomery County

Moore County

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) Region IV

North Carolina State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO)

Catawba Tribe

Cherokee Tribe

Feedback received from agencies or local government include the following organizations:

• USFWS 

• Mecklenburg County
49 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

Specific coordination was undertaken by FRA with the following: 

○ NC SHPO related to Section 106 Consultation 

○ Catawba and Cherokee Tribes related to Section 106 Consultation

○ USFWS related to Federal Threatened and Endangered Species

○ NCNHP related to State Threatened and Endangered Species 

○ USDA NRCS related to FPPA soils

Agency correspondence is included in Appendix G.

6.3 EA Distribution List 

The EA is being made available digitally on the FRA website. Public notification was made on the FRA 

website and the Charlotte Observer. Hard copies will not be distributed. An email announcing the EA’s 

availability was sent to the following federal, state, and local entities (Table 13).

Table 13: Distribution List 

Agency

Federal

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV

National Park Service (NPS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Catawba Tribe

Cherokee Tribe

State

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NC DNCR)

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Local

Mecklenburg County 

Cabarrus County

Montgomery County

Moore County Planning and Transportation Director

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
50 | P a g e

Environmental Assessment

Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway – Congestion Mitigation Project

July 2022

7.0 List of Preparers

Skelly and Loy 

Laura Bair, Senior Project Manager, (B.S.) Shippensburg University 

22 years’ experience. Contributions: EA Author, Project Manager

Kevin Starner CEP, NEPA Department Manager, (B.S.) Shippensburg University 

24 years’ experience. Contributions: QA/QC

Alan Dunay, Senior Scientist, Acoustics, (B.S.) Penn State University 

24 years’ experience. Contributions: Air Quality, Noise and GHG

Elizabeth Grietzer, Field Scientist, (B.S., M.S.) 

Delaware Valley University, Montclair State University

3 years’ experience. Contributions: EJ, Socioeconomics, Hazardous Waste

Terracon 

JC Weaver, Project Scientist, (B.S.) University of North Carolina

18 years’ experience. Contributions: Wetlands and T&E

Melissa McKay, Project Manager, (B.A., M.S) 

University of North Carolina, University of Georgia

10 years’ experience. Contributions: Cultural Resources
Appendices

Appendix A – Project Mapping

Appendix B – USDA NRCS Coordination 

Appendix C – Wetland and Watercourse Documentation

Appendix D – Threatened and Endangered Species Coordination 

Appendix E – Section 106 Consultation and Supporting Documentation 

Appendix F – Hazardous Waste Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

Appendix G – Public and Agency Coordination